First Principles

Establishing some first principles for working with gender identity issues in children & young people

First Principles

The human mind is both miraculous and imperfect in nature. Millions of years of evolution have provided us with an incredible capacity for logic and reason and enabled us to gain a mastery of our environment that is unprecedented in the animal kingdom. At the same time, we are not machines, nor are we designed for pure reason. As such we have a plethora of biases, heuristics and blind spots that can easily lead us astray. While these traits may have been crucial to our survival and development as a species, they can pose significant hindrances when navigating complex and challenging topics.

Resourceful as we are, humans have developed many tools and technologies to mitigate or limit the negative impact of our cognitive pitfalls. One such tool is the concept of first principles, which involves establishing fundamental principles that serve as an anchor to help us navigate complexity. This method allows us to follow a consistent thought process while highlighting inconsistencies in our reasoning.

The topic of gender and gender identity is arguably as complex as they come, particularly in the current cultural climate of politicisation, polarisation, and misinformation. Social work, by its very nature, is also an immensely complex field. To adequately consider the social work response to the rapidly growing client base of young people experiencing gender related distress¹, it is vital to establish first principles. In doing so, we can improve our ability to navigate this intricate landscape and develop the most consistent and effective methods of responding to clients.

Social workers have a diverse range of orientations when it comes to the role of the social work profession². Inevitably, this means there will be ample room for disagreement as to the principles that should govern social work practice. In order to avoid this issue, the Children Act 1989³ (hereby referred to as CA89) and the Human Rights Act 1998 ⁴ will be used as a starting point, with some supplementation from case law and practice guidance, as it serves as the underpinning of all children’s social work in England. While many social workers are likely to feel they have a strong working knowledge of the CA89, we cannot establish our first principles without revisiting it.

The Children Act 1989 and its Principles

There are several reasons why the CA89 provides a suitable starting point for establishing first principles. Foremost among these is the Act’s explicit outlining of principles by which the court is to consider child protection matters. However, its history also makes it preferable to more contemporary alternatives. From the Prevention of Cruelty to, and Protection of, Children Act 1889 (the first statute criminalising child mistreatment⁵) through to the numerous enquiries into social care failings that took place in the 1980s⁶, the CA89 represents over 100 years of trial, error, learning and debate around the ethical and legal responsibilities of the state, professionals, parents, and the public towards children. While it may be imperfect, and future amendments are inevitable, this dispersed network of accumulated knowledge is something that no individual, myself included, can surpass through personal reasoning alone.

The first principle underpinning the CA89 is outlined in section 1(1) of the Act: “the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration”. While this refers specifically to court proceedings, social workers are also generally expected to prioritise the child’s welfare. At first glance, this may seem self-evident – prompting the question, “But what else would be the focus?” Yet, this principle is vital because, in practice, other considerations may take precedence, whether this is conscious or unconscious.

For instance, the heavily politicised nature of gender identity could lead a social worker’s ideological preconceptions to overshadow the welfare of the child. A social worker with strong beliefs regarding gender identity – whether in support of or opposed to transition – might pursue an outcome that aligns with those beliefs rather than prioritising the child’s welfare. Resolving this issue requires reliance on the best available evidence to understand and address the presenting difficulties. To evaluate evidence effectively, it must be considered without prejudice – no questions or actions should be deemed off-limits prior to thorough examination of the evidence. Social transition, medical transition, watchful waiting, psychotherapy, and any other intervention must be equally open to consideration if we are to find the intervention that truly prioritises the welfare of the child.

Section 3 of the CA89 defines parental responsibility as encompassing “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority” that a parent has concerning their child. This includes primary decision-making authority. Section 31 reinforces this by stipulating that courts may only intervene “the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer significant harm”. Harm is further defined as “ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development”. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 also establishes an individual’s right to a private and family life. Case law has emphasized that, absent evidence of harm, decisions about parenting fall outside of the scope of social workers’ authority⁷.

In the context of a gender-questioning child, this means social workers cannot dictate parental responses unless there is sufficient evidence that the child is likely to suffer significant harm due to the parents’ approach. Whether parents choose to support a form of social or medical transition, or opt against transition altogether, social workers must refrain from intervention beyond offering advice and guidance unless harm is evident.

Section 22(4) of the CA89 requires local authorities to seek the wishes and feelings of the child, parents, individuals with parental responsibility, and other relevant parties before making any decisions. Section 22(5) further mandates that these wishes be considered “in light of [the child’s] age and understanding.” This means a child’s view must be considered but weighed alongside their developmental capacity and broader factors that may not be fully understood by the child.

Adopting a purely “child-led” approach – where the child’s immediate wishes dictate the response – fails to address the complexities of the situation. For example, the Cass Review⁸ highlighted significant difficulties in obtaining meaningfully informed consent from children and young people for both medical and social transition. Social workers therefore bear the responsibility of balancing short-term and long-term considerations, ensuring that immediate distress resolution does not lead to adverse outcomes over time.

Summarising

Child protection legislation in the UK is complex, and it is impossible to provide an exhaustive account in a single article. However, by selecting key statutes, we can extrapolate a set of foundational principles to guide our approach to gender identity issues in children and young people. While new challenges and considerations will undoubtedly arise, and any principles will need to be subject to regular revision, we can currently anchor ourselves in the following:

1. The welfare of the child must be the foremost consideration, evaluated using the best available evidence.

2. Social workers should not intervene with parental choices unless there is sufficient evidence that these will result in significant harm to the child.

3. A child’s views should be considered in light of their developmental understanding and weighed alongside other relevant factors that may be absent from the child’s reasoning.

References

1. Taylor, J., Hall, R., Langton, T., Fraser, L, & Hewitt, C. (2024) Characteristics of Children and Adolescents Referred to Specialist Gender Services: A Systematic Review. Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol.109

2. Payne, M. (2021) Modern Social Work Theory, 5^th Ed. Red Globe Press: London

3. Great Britian, Children Act 1989, London: The National Archives. Available online at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/contents

4. Great Britain, Human Rights Act 1998, London: The National Archives. Available online at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

5. Batty, D. (2004) Timeline: The History of Child Protection. The Guardian, 23^rd April. Available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/apr/23/childrensservices.childprotection

6. Carr, H. & Goosey, D. (2021) Law for Social Workers, 16^th Ed. Oxford University Press: Oxford

7. Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35; Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050

8. Cass, H. (2024) The Cass Review: Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People, available online at: https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf